lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sched: restore sanity
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:21:50 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 19:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:22:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > wrote:
> > > What are the negatives of using pr_<level>?
> > pr_ is really just for "I am a driver and want a single line message
> > out in a standardized format".
> > Nothing wrong with that.
> >
> > But here you are changing fundamental kernel outputs in the style
> > of an oops message. Multiline, complex and machine parsed things...
>
> The prefixing was trivial to change.
> No other output was modified.

but you still have a "multiline message" (the atomic schedule oops like
dump) that now is half printk half pr_*... where pr_ is just a silly
wrapper around printk now that the prefixing etc is gone.

>
> I believe kernel log output is specifically _not_ guaranteed
> and should not be so guaranteed to remain stable across
> versions.

changing it gratuitously is bad though. There *are* scripts out there
parsing oopses. Yes they change as kernels change, but changing
the output of oopses for silly reasons is just hostile

>
>


--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-21 01:49    [W:0.059 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site